[03:51] <smartboyhw> Noskcaj10, I will review your testcase branches post-lunch.
[03:52] <smartboyhw> rather, post-piano lesson...
[16:32] <jjohansen> \o
[16:32] <tyhicks> hello
[16:32] <mdeslaur> \o
[16:32] <jdstrand> hi!
[16:32] <jdstrand> #startmeeting
[16:32] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jun 17 16:32:56 2013 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[16:32] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[16:32] <jdstrand> The meeting agenda can be found at:
[16:32] <jdstrand> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[16:33] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Announcements
[16:33] <jdstrand> Stefan Bader (smb) provided debdiffs for precise-raring for xen. Your work is very much appreciated and will keep Ubuntu users secure. Thanks!
[16:33] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report
[16:33] <chrisccoulson> hi
[16:33] <jdstrand> I'll go first
[16:34] <jdstrand> I'm on triage this week
[16:34] <jdstrand> I will finish the preliminary install audit of the phablet image this week
[16:34] <jdstrand> I have some pending updates
[16:35] <jdstrand> and need to review sbeattie's deliverables for the month and plan for getting them finished since he is on holiday
[16:35] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[16:35] <mdeslaur> I'm on community this week
[16:35] <mdeslaur> am currently testing an embargoed issue
[16:35] <mdeslaur> and will write a test for libraw
[16:36] <mdeslaur> will go down the list of updates after that
[16:36] <mdeslaur> that's pretty much it
[16:36] <mdeslaur> uh...who's usually after steve... tyhicks?
[16:36] <tyhicks> yep
[16:37] <tyhicks> I'm currently drafting an email to the apparmor list to push the dbus syntax discussions along
[16:37] <tyhicks> I hope that we can come to a decision on that and I can make the parser changes for that this week
[16:38]  * sarnold dons asbestos ..
[16:39] <jdstrand> so
[16:39] <jdstrand> with sbeattie out, I wonder if we can actually take a decision
[16:39] <tyhicks> I'll also be going through my todo list of trivial things that needs to be fixed/improved in the dbus and apparmor packages as we get closer to upstreaming those and sticking them in the archive
[16:39] <tyhicks> jdstrand: I expected more people to chime into your question on proposal 3 vs 4
[16:40] <jdstrand> me too :\
[16:40] <tyhicks> jdstrand: but, I feel like there's still a lean towards 3
[16:40] <tyhicks> which is sbeattie's proposal
[16:41] <tyhicks> That's it for me
[16:41] <tyhicks> jjohansen: you're up
[16:41] <jdstrand> because that didn't happen and steve is on vacation, I don't think we can take a decision and complete that work item
[16:41] <jdstrand> wait
[16:41] <tyhicks> ah
[16:41] <tyhicks> sorry
[16:41] <jdstrand> before we get to jjohansen
[16:41] <jdstrand> jjohansen: opinion? ^
[16:42] <jjohansen> jdstrand: well likely not, but we will see how things go. I don't think steve cares so much about 3 vs 4
[16:42] <jdstrand> huh, 4 seems so radically different I would think there would be an opinion
[16:43] <jjohansen> but if we are leaning towards 3 and since it is his proposal modified, maybe
[16:43] <jdstrand> but I don't want to stall out for weeks either
[16:43] <jdstrand> my feeling is that as upstream, we shouldn't take the decision
[16:43] <jjohansen> jdstrand: don't worry I can throw enough fuel on the fire
[16:43] <jdstrand> jjohansen: I'm afraid of said fuel :P
[16:44] <jdstrand>  my feeling is that as upstream, we shouldn't take the decision without steve
[16:44] <jdstrand> but, for Ubuntu I think we should revise our stance on pushing a syntax that may change
[16:45] <jjohansen> I think that we will just have to push something that may change
[16:45] <jjohansen> but lets get it to where it likely won't
[16:45] <jdstrand> in others words, let's get as far as we can on the syntax as we can without steve (like tyhicks said), then push that into the archive (or at least the ppa) so that these code bits are in before feature freeze and getting some testing
[16:46] <tyhicks> I think that makes sense
[16:46] <jdstrand> then when he gets back, we can see what he objects to (if anything), then adjust before committing upstream. then after committing to upstream, do another upload to ubuntu
[16:47] <tyhicks> that's reasonable
[16:47] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, jjohansen: what do you think?
[16:48] <jjohansen> jdstrand: I think its the only thing we can reasonable do given the circumstance
[16:48] <mdeslaur> I didn't follow what the issue was, so I have no current opinion
[16:48] <jdstrand> ok, then let's plan on that
[16:48] <jdstrand> tyhicks: thanks
[16:48] <jdstrand> jjohansen: you're up
[16:48] <jjohansen> I'll be working on backporting apparmor for the phablet kernels, an email to push the syntax discussion along (or at least ignite the arguing again), hopefully release 2.8.2 and then back to working ipc
[16:49] <jjohansen> s/working/working on/
[16:49]  * jjohansen just wishes it was all working
[16:51] <mdeslaur> \o/ phablet kernels
[16:52] <jjohansen> thats it for me sarnold your up
[16:53] <sarnold> I'm in my happy place this week, though I've got some leftover packages from community to finish: stunnel4 (I want another two manual tests before shipping) and ruby-openid (no idea how to test, asking ckuerst for ideas..)
[16:54] <sarnold> the patch for ruby-openid looked simpled enough, it's probably fine even without a test, but just 'it loads' is a little unsatisfying.
[16:55] <sarnold> I'm looking forward t othrowing rocks at hornets's nests^W^W^W^W the upcoming dbus responses... I'm mostly happy with #3 but want to make sure that we're not missing something better.
[16:55] <sarnold> I'm hopeful for some patch review from jjohansen or tyhicks this week, but if not, I'll pick up an update
[16:56] <sarnold> I think that's it for me; chrisccoulson, you're up :)
[16:56] <chrisccoulson> w00t
[16:57] <chrisccoulson> so, last week we got a flash update, and i did some more work on our chromium API
[16:57] <chrisccoulson> i've scheduled a meeting tomorrow afternoon to discuss that btw :)
[16:57] <chrisccoulson> i shall be doing more work on that this week, and we'll likely get chromium published too (yay!)
[16:57] <jdstrand> sarnold: regarding options against #3-- not to worry, I'll be happy to shoot those down too
[16:57] <jdstrand> sarnold: :P (j/k ;)
[16:57] <sarnold> jdstrand: woo :)
[16:58]  * jdstrand hugs sarnold 
[16:58] <sarnold> chrisccoulson: oh man, that's awesome. :)
[16:58] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: chromium updates! /me rubs his eyes
[16:58] <chrisccoulson> also, i'll get builds for next weeks firefox update before the end of the week
[16:58]  * jdstrand hugs chrisccoulson too :)
[16:58] <chrisccoulson> so it's going to be a fun end to the week ;)
[16:58] <chrisccoulson> thanks :)
[16:58] <chrisccoulson> i think that's me done
[16:59] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Highlighted packages
[16:59] <jdstrand> The Ubuntu Security team will highlight some community-supported packages that might be good candidates for updating and or triaging. If you would like to help Ubuntu and not sure where to start, this is a great way to do so.
[16:59] <jdstrand> See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdateProcedures for details and if you have any questions, feel free to ask in #ubuntu-security. To find out other ways of helping out, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/GettingInvolved.
[16:59] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/lib3ds.html
[16:59] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/tryton-server.html
[16:59] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/libphp-jpgraph.html
[16:59] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/osc.html
[17:00] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/magics++.html
[17:00] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[17:00] <jdstrand> Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[17:05] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, tyhicks, jjohansen, sarnold, chrisccoulson: thanks!
[17:05] <jdstrand> #endmeeting
[17:05] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Jun 17 17:05:33 2013 UTC.
[17:05] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-06-17-16.32.moin.txt
[17:05] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-06-17-16.32.html
[17:05] <sarnold> thanks jdstrand :)
[17:05] <tyhicks> thanks
[17:05] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand!
[17:06] <jjohansen> thanks jdstrand
[17:07] <jdstrand> sure thing :)
[19:00] <bdrung> !dmb-ping
[19:00]  * barry waves
[19:00] <Laney> lo
[19:00] <tumbleweed> hi
[19:01] <tumbleweed> we have apologies from ScottK, so I guess I'm chair
[19:02] <tumbleweed> #startmeeting Ubuntu Developer Membership Board
[19:02] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jun 17 19:02:03 2013 UTC.  The chair is tumbleweed. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[19:02] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[19:02] <tumbleweed> can someone else volunteer to chair if I have network trouble again / have to run off? I'll handle the minutes etc.
[19:02]  * barry can
[19:02] <tumbleweed> thanks
[19:02] <tumbleweed> #chair barry
[19:02] <meetingology> Current chairs: barry tumbleweed
[19:02] <tumbleweed> #topic Review of previous action items
[19:03] <tumbleweed> barry to send outcome of sweetshark ppu vote
[19:03] <barry> done
[19:03] <tumbleweed> everyone read and amend http://pad.ubuntu.com/dmb-ppu-membership-proposal, and sign up for the implementation tasks
[19:03] <tumbleweed> Laney: care to drive this?
[19:03] <Laney> rather micahg did if he's here
[19:03] <tumbleweed> ah, of course
[19:03]  * stgraber waves
[19:04] <stgraber> (sorry, just got out of another meeting, it's that kind of day...)
[19:04] <Laney> :(
[19:04] <Laney> ok, seems not
[19:04] <Laney> so I think we're all agreed on the principle
[19:05] <Laney> that we shouldn't always require membership contributions
[19:05] <Laney> err wtf
[19:05] <Laney> membership levels of involement from new developers
[19:06] <Laney> the remaining questions are about precisely where we should set the new boundaries
[19:06] <Laney> like:
[19:06] <Laney>  - which, if any, packagesets should this apply to?
[19:06] <Laney>  - should it be open to all PPU?
[19:07] <Laney> and there's questions about how to design the application procedure (should considering membership be implicit?)
[19:07] <barry> Laney: i wonder if we can start small and just apply it to ppu and not package sets (although there may be some overlap, but ignore that for now)
[19:07] <Laney> ah, I think it's non-controversial enough that we can deal with it all at once
[19:08] <Laney> and one thing I thought of is that we should probably say that all devs need to have signed the CoC I suppose
[19:08]  * bdrung nods.
[19:09] <tumbleweed> our membership-monitoring thing already enforces CoC for all uploaders IIRC
[19:09] <Laney> right, but that requirement is implicit because of membership
[19:09] <Laney> we just need to say it
[19:09] <stgraber> barry: I don't see much of a point to distinguish between PPU and packageset as the concerns at least for me are similar. e.g. I'd be oposed to give PPU to xserver-xorg to a non-member just as much as I'd to give xorg packageset rights to a non-member. Packagesets indeed are just a level of abstraction on top of PPU, so the two should be treated the same way.
[19:09] <micahg-work> I would think that CoC needs to apply to uploaders as well
[19:09] <Laney> i don't think it's a controversial suggestion - the smallest tweak of the lot of them really ...
[19:10] <Laney> let's take the packageset question
[19:10] <micahg-work> it's a standard for interaction with the community, not just a prerequisite for membership
[19:11] <Laney> I saw we just treat packagesets as a convenience aggregating PPU together
[19:11] <micahg-work> well, that's one type
[19:11] <Laney> but there are 'flavour' packagesets which are somewhat different
[19:11] <micahg-work> right, that's the other
[19:12] <tumbleweed> and, package sets that consist of many (or entirely of) seeded packages
[19:13] <micahg-work> umm...well, I see that as one of the two other cases
[19:13] <tumbleweed> they have a lot in common with flavour packagesets, without necessarily being flavour packagesets
[19:13] <micahg-work> tumbleweed, example pleasE?
[19:13] <micahg-work> flavor packagesets imply project level involvement
[19:13] <tumbleweed> core was mentioned in the discussion earlier. xorg?
[19:14] <stgraber> core, desktop-core, xorg, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server, ...
[19:14] <stgraber> we have a few of those
[19:14] <micahg-work> core packageset isn't a packageset for these purposes IMHO, that would be core-dev
[19:14] <Laney> I can't imagine entertaining an application for the first two
[19:14] <Laney> not without other changes anyway
[19:14] <micahg-work> right
[19:14] <micahg-work> the last 2 are flavors
[19:14] <micahg-work> xorg has seeded content, but that's aggregate PPU IMHO
[19:15] <tumbleweed> and we'd be unlikley to give a new person upload access to it. But conceputally, it probably doesn't require membership
[19:15] <Laney> right
[19:16] <barry> well, one way it could work is that the general rule is membership is not necessary for ppu.  then we have a black list of packages for which membership *is* required.  then if any of those packages appear in a package-set, the set is also blacklisted.  it means the level of check/control is at the package level
[19:16] <Laney> haha
[19:16] <micahg-work> I'm not sure about which problem we're trying to solve here
[19:17] <bdrung> would having all main packages in the blacklist too restrict?
[19:17] <Laney> yes
[19:17] <tumbleweed> micahg-work: making it clear to applicants whether they need membership or not
[19:17] <micahg-work> If we are trusting them with upload rights for these important packages, we're inherently trusting them not to break stuff
[19:17] <micahg-work> tumbleweed, no, I mean the issue of packagesets like xorg requiring membership
[19:17] <tumbleweed> yeah, agreed with you
[19:18] <micahg-work> having membership shouldn't improve that "trust" any
[19:18] <Laney> Right, we're not lowering any technical requirements here
[19:18] <Laney> so if they know everything they need to to upload then I don't see any need to require s&s on top of that
[19:19] <micahg-work> and if we're worried someone's going to break the archive during a milestone or what not, we probably shouldn't be giving them upload rights in the first place
[19:20] <tumbleweed> ok, flavour packagesets?
[19:22] <micahg-work> flavor packagesets have project level scope IMHO and should require membership (in that we want flavors integrated into the main Ubuntu community and not islands amongst themselves)
[19:22] <tumbleweed> yeah, my feeling too
[19:22] <Laney> same
[19:22] <Laney> for the same reason we'll continue requiring it for motu/core-dev
[19:22] <tumbleweed> can we vote on this proposal, or is there anything else we need to hash out?
[19:22] <bdrung> which criteria do we want to use for requiring significant & sustainable contribution?
[19:22] <micahg-work> stgraber, how do you feel about all this?
[19:23] <stgraber> micahg-work: still not too happy about opening the possiblity of the DMB granting upload rights to critical packages without requiring membership. I know that the current DMB probably is reasonable about it, but I'm not thrilled about the documented new process being that open.
[19:24] <Laney> I guess I don't feel that membership is where concerns about individual developers are likely to be
[19:24] <Laney> it's going to be at their technical judgement
[19:25] <micahg-work> right, that's how I feel as well
[19:25] <stgraber> well, I personally tend to like people who have upload rights to packages installed by default on my system to have been around for at least a whole cycle
[19:25] <tumbleweed> I don't want non-member developers to be come a norm
[19:26] <micahg-work> stgraber, we can make being around a whole cycle a requirement without requiring membership (not requiring significant or sustained, just the time period)
[19:26] <tumbleweed> would we be prepared to limit this to entirely non-main package (-set)s ?
[19:26] <stgraber> so I'm happy to grant non-member PPU to some upstream dev maintaining their package in universe, but I'd prefer to have the process restricted in a way that ensures that
[19:26] <Laney> I think that any DMB the community has confidence in will be rigorous enough
[19:26] <stgraber> micahg-work: then I think I'd be happy with that
[19:27] <Laney> what is 'being around'?
[19:27] <Laney> time from first upload to application?
[19:27] <micahg-work> we already require understanding of the release schedule for upload rights
[19:27] <tumbleweed> being around a whole cycle, but not a member doesn't sound like a common scenario
[19:27] <Laney> indeed
[19:27] <micahg-work> Laney, well, either that or first contribution (bzr included)
[19:27] <stgraber> Laney: either first upload or testimonial from a current dev that the applicant has been anoying them for over 6 months
[19:28] <micahg-work> just being exposed to the release process
[19:31] <tumbleweed> how about if instead of requiring non-main, we added a sentence to the effect of: Upload rights to core (seeded) packages will require sustained experience in the project (usually meaning membership)?
[19:31] <bdrung> +1
[19:32]  * tumbleweed isn't convinced that membership from forums would make us happy about upload rights to xorg, though :P
[19:32] <Laney> fine, but I don't see the point in singling packages out like that
[19:32] <Laney> I'd rather make explicit that we'll require a level of trust that is appropriate for the packages in question
[19:32] <micahg-work> tumbleweed, right, that's the catch, you can get membership for a lot of different things
[19:32] <Laney> so nethack not so much, binutils perhaps a bit more
[19:33] <micahg-work> Laney, I think that's fair
[19:33] <Laney> which is of course what happens already
[19:33] <micahg-work> right
[19:33] <tumbleweed> Laney: the level of trust expectation is already there
[19:34] <tumbleweed> level of trust doesn't mean experience of release process, which is what stgraber seems concerned about
[19:34] <micahg-work> tumbleweed, it does to some extent
[19:34] <micahg-work> especially WRT seeded packages
[19:34] <micahg-work> it's one of the components
[19:34] <Laney> well it doesn't say "you have to have been around for X months" indeed
[19:34] <Laney> but the DMB has to convince itself
[19:35]  * Laney shrugs
[19:35] <micahg-work> I'm fine with explicit vagueness if it solves the problem
[19:35] <Laney> if this is what we need to move on then so be it
[19:35] <tumbleweed> clarity of our expectations would also be useful
[19:35] <tumbleweed> OK, so while we consider this. What's next
[19:35] <tumbleweed> mail final wording to TB for signoff?
[19:36] <tumbleweed> can we get a final wording now? or this this meeting not going to do it for us?
[19:36] <tumbleweed> we have an applicant to process, too
[19:36] <Laney> wording of what?
[19:36] <Laney> an announcement?
[19:37] <tumbleweed> the proposal, if we want their signoff
[19:37] <Laney> I guess just edit the pad that I started already to reflect what we decide now
[19:37] <tumbleweed> ok, I think we should move on now, we can revisit this later
[19:37] <Laney> then ask the TB to ack/nack it at their meeting
[19:37] <tumbleweed> remaining action item:
[19:37] <tumbleweed> laney to update DD-PPU process to say that any ubuntu-dev is eligible
[19:38] <Laney> yeah sorry didn't do that yet
[19:38] <tumbleweed> ok, carried
[19:38] <Laney> but we got an applicant through it anyway
[19:38] <Laney> so seems ok
[19:38] <tumbleweed> #topic Louis Bouchard's Contributing Developer application
[19:38] <tumbleweed> caribou: hi
[19:38] <caribou> Hello everyone
[19:38] <caribou> tumbleweed: o/
[19:38] <tumbleweed> caribou: please introduce your application
[19:38] <tumbleweed> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LouisBouchard
[19:39] <caribou> My name is Louis Bouchard
[19:39] <caribou> I've been working on Ubuntu as my day job for a bit more than 2 years noew
[19:39] <caribou> but started using ubuntu in 2006 with Edgy
[19:40] <caribou> I will not repeat what you can read on the Wiki page
[19:40] <caribou> I come from the dark side of proprietary softwarea long long time ago
[19:40] <tumbleweed> heh
[19:40] <caribou> I involvment with Ubuntu is mainly around bug fixing, SRU etc
[19:41] <caribou> I also do some mentored packaging on the debian side of things
[19:41] <tumbleweed> great to hear
[19:41] <caribou> Since my involvment has been regularly increasing with Ubuntu, I thought it was appropriate to apply for UCD
[19:42] <tumbleweed> I'm afraid I have to run off in a minute, but hopefully barry can continue chairing the meeting for me
[19:42] <tumbleweed> caribou: when do you expect to be applying for upload rigths?
[19:42] <caribou> most of my involvment is around Foundation packages, with a bit of work on the kernel side
[19:42] <caribou> I want to get more exposure with merges and also participate in PlusOne to get more experience
[19:42]  * barry takes a seat
[19:43] <barry> caribou: have you scheduled your plus-one yet?
[19:43] <caribou> no, not yet. I will need some hand-holding in that direction
[19:44] <caribou> but some of my colleagues have participated a few cycles already
[19:44] <caribou> so they can help
[19:44] <barry> caribou: it's a great learning experience
[19:44] <caribou> barry: that's what I heard, which triggered my interest
[19:44] <caribou> merging is also something I'm curious about.
[19:45] <caribou> I see packaging from the debian side of things only right now
[19:45] <caribou> though it's a rather small package
[19:46] <caribou> I also think that PlusOne will help me in may daily activities
[19:46] <caribou> anything else I can outline for you ?
[19:46] <bdrung> caribou: i saw that makedumpfile is arch restricted. is that intentional?
[19:47] <caribou> bdrung: there seems to be some issues currently with the ARM side of things
[19:47] <caribou> bdrung: there is an open Debian bug about it that needs my attention
[19:48] <caribou> bdrung: aside from that, I think that there is one specific PPC patch laying around that might explain it
[19:48] <bdrung> caribou: but shouldn't it work on all architectures (besides bugs)?
[19:49] <caribou> afaik makedumpfile do make some assumptions regarding specific architectures
[19:49] <caribou> bdrung: as it works in a kexec triggered kernel boot that is somewhat different from a regular boot environment
[19:50] <bdrung> ah, okay
[19:51] <caribou> bdrung: that might come from debian's inheritance as well, since I don't think we do specific changes to the package on Ubuntu
[19:51] <caribou> I see it listed for amd64, i386, ia64 and powerpc only on Debian
[19:52] <barry> caribou: thanks.  i think we're ready to vote
[19:52] <barry> #vote should caribou become an ubuntu contributing developer?
[19:52] <meetingology> Please vote on: should caribou become an ubuntu contributing developer?
[19:52] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[19:53] <bdrung> +1
[19:53] <meetingology> +1 received from bdrung
[19:53] <barry> tumbleweed extends a +1
[19:53] <barry> +1
[19:53] <meetingology> +1 received from barry
[19:53] <Laney> +1
[19:53] <stgraber> +1
[19:53] <meetingology> +1 received from Laney
[19:53] <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
[19:53] <micahg-work> +1
[19:53] <meetingology> +1 received from micahg-work
[19:54] <barry> and scottk is absent today, so
[19:54] <barry> #endvote
[19:54] <meetingology> Voting ended on: should caribou become an ubuntu contributing developer?
[19:54] <meetingology> Votes for:5 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[19:54] <meetingology> Motion carried
[19:54] <barry> caribou: congratulations
[19:54] <caribou> barry: & everyone else, thank you very much
[19:54] <caribou> looking forward to see you again for the next step
[19:55] <Laney> \o/
[19:55] <barry> caribou: indeed!  enjoy the +1 :)
[19:55] <caribou> & all the work in the meantime
[19:55] <Laney> get on that sponsorin' train
[19:55] <caribou> Laney: will do
[19:55] <barry> we have no more applicants today
[19:55] <barry> #topic AOB
[19:55] <barry> anything else folks want to bring up today?
[19:56] <Laney> I don't know how we are carrying the PPU thing on
[19:56] <barry> Laney: i think we have to continue on the mailing list
[19:57] <Laney> ok
[19:58] <barry> if there's nothing else, i think we're done
[19:58] <barry> #endmeeting
[19:58] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Jun 17 19:58:38 2013 UTC.
[19:58] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-06-17-19.02.moin.txt
[19:58] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-06-17-19.02.html
[19:59] <Laney> thanks
[20:00] <caribou> thanks everyone & have a nice rest of the day
[20:01] <stgraber> thanks
[20:28] <tumbleweed> caribou: congrats :)
[20:58]  * ScottK wave belatedly.